The Senate Armed Services Committee has inserted language in its version of the fiscal 2016 defense authorization bill that takes a different view. It seeks to end what some lawmakers perceive as an income windfall for dual-service couples by linking BAH payments to what these families actually pay to rent housing at new and future assignments.

If the full Senate and, later this summer, the full House were to agree to this change, it would be a dramatic compensation cut for dual-service families whose total numbers have grown over the last several years with military recognition of gay and lesbian marital status.

Under current law, a dual service couple with no children assigned to the same locale can each draw BAH at a lower “without dependents” rate. If the couples have a child or children, the more senior ranking member can draw BAH at a higher “with dependents” rate while the other member continues to draw BAH at the lower “without” rate.

The Senate bill, in both circumstances, would allow only the higher-ranking member in dual-service marriage to draw any BAH, though at the higher with-dependents rate. The other member would be ineligible for BAH.

To prevent couples from circumventing this proposed change in law by living in separate residences while assigned to the same area, the Senate committee would direct that the new BAH limit apply to couples “who are assigned within normal commuting distance from each other.”

As a finance person, this immediately struck me as a pretty terrible idea and not even for the reason you might be thinking. The unintended consequences of this change would be massive. As stated in the article, the law will "prevent couples from circumventing this proposed change in law by living in separate residences while assigned to the same area, the Senate committee would direct that the new BAH limit apply to couples “who are assigned within normal commuting distance from each other.”

Based on the above, if a couple is legally married only the higher ranking member will receive BAH. What happens when a couple decides to get divorced? Is the lower ranking member expected to live without BAH for however long the divorce takes? That could be years. If not, what documentation will be used to restart BAH?

Let's say a couple decides to split up. The husband is lower ranking and he moves out and gets his own apartment. Does he have to file for divorce first before finance can restart the BAH? What if after six months the couple decides not to get divorced? Does finance collect back the BAH? This sounds like a giant mess and finance is going to spend an insane amount of time trying to figure out living everyone's marital situation.

If the above wasn't bad enough, what about same sex couples? They want equal treatment right? Does this mean that if a same sex couple declares their selves married one of them will also lose their BAH? That seems like an incentive for same sex couples to pretend they aren't married which is ironically the exact opposite of how it used to be.

As a finance person, this immediately struck me as a pretty terrible idea and not even for the reason you might be thinking. The unintended consequences of this change would be massive. As stated in the article, the law will "prevent couples from circumventing this proposed change in law by living in separate residences while assigned to the same area, the Senate committee would direct that the new BAH limit apply to couples “who are assigned within normal commuting distance from each other.”

Based on the above, if a couple is legally married only the higher ranking member will receive BAH. What happens when a couple decides to get divorced? Is the lower ranking member expected to live without BAH for however long the divorce takes? That could be years. If not, what documentation will be used to restart BAH?

Let's say a couple decides to split up. The husband is lower ranking and he moves out and gets his own apartment. Does he have to file for divorce first before finance can restart the BAH? What if after six months the couple decides not to get divorced? Does finance collect back the BAH? This sounds like a giant mess and finance is going to spend an insane amount of time trying to figure out living everyone's marital situation.

If the above wasn't bad enough, what about same sex couples? They want equal treatment right? Does this mean that if a same sex couple declares their selves married one of them will also lose their BAH? That seems like an incentive for same sex couples to pretend they aren't married which is ironically the exact opposite of how it used to be.

What say you guys?

Doesn't sound like a huge mess for finance really...these are pretty easy to overcome with a set of rules.

Obviously, same-sex married couples are treated exactly like opposite-sex married couples.

There would be a financial incentive to not get legally married, I suppose. I'm okay with that...it's almost better than the alternative where we provide financial and living condition incentive (get out of the dorms) for young kids to get married, probably before they should.

That said...I think this is pretty unfair though. Each member serves in the their own right and are entitled to the compensation for doing so. What if a military member marries a highly paid civiian? Should he/she take a pay cut because that isn't fair? Makes no sense. A person is in the service, draws compensation for it, end of story.

I don't have any disagreement with sandsjames idea though...one flat rate BAH for everyone, single or married or kids.

This wrongly discriminates against individual military members. Each member is entitled to BAH, regardless of who they choose to marry. If this passes, expect the next target to be mil-to-mil household goods entitlements and perhaps even retirement. I can hear it now, "why pay both mil members retirement when most other couples only enjoy one paycheck."

It sounds like a dick move, but BAH is an entitlement to cover housing and if housing is provided then Mil-Mil or Mil-Civ couples would still be provided housing commensurate with their rank and family size.

I do like @sandsjames idea of one flat rate BAH rate for everyone as well, whether it would vary by location or what not ... dunno. Basic pay could also be increased an eliminate BAH, BAS / COMRATS etc. altogether ...

The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

It sounds like a dick move, but BAH is an entitlement to cover housing and if housing is provided then Mil-Mil or Mil-Civ couples would still be provided housing commensurate with their rank and family size.

I do like @sandsjames idea of one flat rate BAH rate for everyone as well, whether it would vary by location or what not ... dunno. Basic pay could also be increased an eliminate BAH, BAS / COMRATS etc. altogether ...

Base housing is being privatized, with full BAH expected as payment. Second, FORCING people to live on base seems fair? Most bases are in ghettos, and the reason many choose not to live on base is so their children aren't forced to attend ghetto schools. Eff them though, right?

Base housing is being privatized, with full BAH expected as payment. Second, FORCING people to live on base seems fair? Most bases are in ghettos, and the reason many choose not to live on base is so their children aren't forced to attend ghetto schools. Eff them though, right?

Not saying it is fair, or even that I think that is something that should be done ... just saying there are options ... some of which are less desirable than the current proposal.

As an aside, if Mil-Mil live in base housing, does the company get both BAH allowances?

The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.